What about Additionality?
GHG Protocol Treatment: The GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard itself does not require demonstrating additionality (i.e., proving that a supplier’s emission reductions would not have occurred otherwise) to claim lower Scope 3 emissions.
Market-Based Logic vs. Offsets: Using supplier-specific data (e.g., from renewable PPAs, RECs, or other contractual instruments) is essentially a “market-based logic” applied to Scope 3. However, the GHG Protocol does not formally call it “market-based Scope 3,” nor does it impose offset-style additionality requirements.
Claim Validity: From an accounting standpoint, end users do not have to prove they caused the emission reductions; rather, they must show that the supplier is legitimately using low-carbon energy and that the associated environmental attributes (e.g., RECs) have been properly assigned to the final product or service.
Below is a more in-depth explanation of how the GHG Protocol, corporate best practices, and other voluntary frameworks handle additionality for Scope 3.
1. Where “Additionality” Typically Applies
Additionality is a concept most commonly seen in carbon offsets or climate-finance projects (e.g., CDM, Gold Standard, VCS). The core question is whether an emissions reduction or removal would have happened without the purchase of offsets or the presence of the climate project.
Carbon Offsets: To claim net emissions reductions or neutrality via offsets, organizations often must prove additionality—that the offset project was directly enabled by their investment.
Scope 2 Renewable Energy Purchases: For location-based vs. market-based accounting (Scope 2), the GHG Protocol recognizes contractual instruments (RECs, Guarantees of Origin, PPAs) without a strict requirement to prove additionality. You simply need valid certificates and to avoid double-counting.
Because Scope 3 is even broader, the GHG Protocol does not have an “offset-like” additionality requirement for reporting upstream or downstream reductions. If your supplier uses verified renewable energy, that results in a lower emission factor for the purchased product or service—regardless of whether you, the end user, financed or directly caused that switch.
2. Scope 3 “Market-Based” Logic vs. Official Protocol Language
Although the Scope 3 Standard does not formally define a “market-based” approach (like it does for Scope 2), many companies are applying the principles of contractual instruments and supplier engagement to reduce upstream emissions. For instance:
Supplier Clean Energy Programs: Apple, Walmart, Microsoft, etc., encourage or incentivize suppliers to sign renewable PPAs or buy RECs.
Supplier-Specific Emission Factors: By collecting direct data from these suppliers, the purchasing company can use a reduced emission factor for that supplier’s goods/services.
Key Point:
From a purely GHG Protocol standpoint, if your supplier has legitimate documentation of renewable energy usage (PPAs, RECs, etc.), you can use those lower emissions factors in your Scope 3 inventory.
There is no formal requirement that you, the reporting entity, must prove “causation” (i.e., additionality). As long as the certificates are valid and allocated correctly, you can account for the lower carbon intensity in your Scope 3.
3. How Additionality Could Arise in Scope 3
Even though not required, some companies or stakeholders may voluntarily scrutinize supply-chain renewable energy claims for additionality. For example:
Corporate Purchasing Programs: If you fund or co-develop a renewable energy project explicitly for your supply chain, you could argue stronger additionality claims.
Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi): In some frameworks, there is a preference (but still not a GHG Protocol requirement) for proving that your actions spurred new renewable capacity—particularly if you’re aiming for net-zero claims that rely on offsets or “beyond-value-chain” mitigation.
However, these are generally guidelines from voluntary climate initiatives, not from the GHG Protocol itself.
4. Making Valid Claims Without Formal Additionality
So do end users need to show they “caused” the emissions reduction?
GHG Protocol Requirement: No. The GHG Protocol simply cares that the supplier’s emissions are accounted for accurately and that any zero-carbon attributes (RECs, etc.) are not double-counted. If the supplier can demonstrate that they legitimately used renewable energy for production, you can count the corresponding reduction in your Scope 3.
Transparency: The GHG Protocol does emphasize transparency. If you are using supplier-specific data, you should describe the data sources, boundaries, and the existence (or not) of contractual instruments. But there’s no specific line in the standard requiring you to prove “we alone made this possible.”
5. Potential Pitfalls & Best Practices
Double-Counting: Make sure that the RECs or certificates your supplier uses haven’t been sold or claimed elsewhere. The GHG Protocol is clear that you can’t reuse the same attribute in multiple claims.
Verification: Some frameworks encourage third-party verification of supplier data, especially if it significantly reduces your reported Scope 3 footprint.
Clarity for Stakeholders: If you want to claim a leadership position in supply-chain decarbonization, it may be wise (though not mandatory) to show how your procurement policies, financial incentives, or co-investments actually spurred the shift to renewables. This is more about credibility with stakeholders than a GHG Protocol requirement.
6. Conclusion
Under current GHG Protocol Scope 3 guidance, you do not need to prove that you caused supplier emission reductions (i.e., demonstrate strict additionality) to claim lower Scope 3 emissions. As long as suppliers are using credible renewable energy instruments and attributing those emission reductions to your purchased goods or services, you can legitimately report a smaller Scope 3 footprint.
That said, if you’re participating in certain net-zero frameworks (e.g., SBTi), they may impose more rigorous criteria around additionality or “beyond-value-chain” mitigation to maintain environmental integrity. In general, the GHG Protocol is focused on accurate, transparent reporting, not additionality.
Last updated